User talk:DHBoggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DHBoggs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Era

Please don't change the standard Common Era dating system to the inappropriate Christian BC/AD system. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't start a war over this issue. I'm going to say however that I am dissapointed that you chose to "fix" my insertion of the proper AD/BC abreviation for the Gregorian dating system. Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have ever considered it from this point of view.DHBoggs 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing this with you, as you clearly have a fixed (and factually inaccurate) view. The Wikipedia approach is that both systems are acceptable, and that one should not be changed to the other unless there's a clear consensus among editors of an article to do so. I don't go around changing BC/AD to the academically established BCE/CE, and it would be courteous if you refrained from the reverse. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy. So be it. However, unsubstantiated accusations of factual inaccuracy are simply unprofessional. I have stated nothing that is not both connotatively and denotatively accurate. If there is an error, point it out to me, back it up, and I'll change my views accordingly, but drive-by accusations are particularly churlish. Further, while I can not speak for England, the BCE/CE designations aren't universally the "Academically Established" norm in the United States and an incresing number of younger scholars are realizing the naturalizing hegemonic view the term encapsulates and rejecting it. I do recognize that there is nothing inherently objectionable were the "C" to stand for "current" instead of "common" but that is not how it has been understood. Regardless, acceptance of these terms by some academics does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public does not use them or even know what C.E. stands for. Wikipedia is a tool for the public, not an esoteric journal for specialists. Just as I wouldn't for example expect hours to be given in military time except in a military journal, I should think an encyclopedia ought use the traditional and publicly familiar dating terminology, and not replace them with controversial terms.DHBoggs 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I'm not interested in going over this again — it has been discussed at length in various Wikipedia forums. Given that you say that you're an anthropologist, you might check the new SAGE five-volume Encyclopedia of Anthropology, which uses the BCE/CE system throughout, as does every recent book in philosophy that I've seen, from both U.S. and other publishers. As for "military time", if you mean the twenty-four hour clock, that is the Wikipedia Manual of Style preferred usage. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see that, instead of responding to what I said, you've been correcting and expanding your earlier comments. Just to let any passers by know — my comments responded to earlier forms of DHBogg's comments, not to what's there now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, as childish as I feel doing this I will indulge you and hope (honestly) it makes you feel better and/or satisfied. First, I said I wasn't interested in a war and I didn't respond because I was and remain perfectly willing to let you have the last word. Second I absolutely reserve the right to mull over and revise my own statements, to clarify, modify and adapt my own text to better reflect the thoughts behind it. In no way have I made any alterations that have anything to do with your statements and anyone can go back and look at what they were before if they are so inclined. If you feel that I have, you of course, are perfectly free to modify your own comments accordingly. The changes I made were primarily for my own reference. This is, after all, my discussion page, serving as much as a reference for me as it does for anyone else, and I might point out I have been nice enought not to put any new argumentative posts on your discussion page as I might have done.DHBoggs 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After comparing the new and the old and giving some more thought to what changes might have irked you, I am somewhat at a loss, but perhaps removal of the statement that the "Common Era" idea was initiated by a group of elitist academics with an agenda might have been it. By "elitist" I meant members of an elite group, which is to say, not "common" people, not meant as a value judgement, nor was I claiming they had nefarious or hidden agandas, indeed the agenda is well publicised, but I later recognized the ambiguity of the statement and removed it as unhelpul to the argument. Often I make straightforwrd statements meant as qualifiers not condemnations so let me say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being an academic or with having an agenda, both terms describe myself and colleagues. Beyond that, I still see nothing you have grounds for calling inaccurate or for complaining that I'm altering the substance of my argument.DHBoggs 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed one of the main inaccuracies to which I was referring, and whose removal left my comment looking much less justifiable. Note, incidentally, that a surprising number of editors do read discussions on others' User pages, and rarely if ever check the History just in case one of the participants has changed earlier contributions; what's on the page is what they judge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)